Two articles that appeared in recent issues of the
ASA Journal prompt
me to write
this letter. The first is the excellent article by B. H, Bube in the March 1968
issue where he outlines a program of "rapprochement"
between ASA members
and the general scientific community. The second concerns a honk
entitled "The
Biblical Flood & The Ice Age" by D. W. Fatten reviewed by A. O, Ramsley
in the December 1967 issue of the ASA Journal.

In his outline, Bribe underscores the importance of high caliber
scientific publications
by ASA members that deal with historical or scientific reliability of the Scriptures. Needless to say, this is an issue of paramount importance to ASA's
image as a legitimate scientific as well as Christian organization. Therefore,
as part of ASA's high standards the organization must carefully
screen biblical-scientific
publications, such as the recent book by D. W. Patten, which appear
on the market
from time to time. A. O. Ramsley gives a comprehensive and reasonably
critical review of Patten's book but fails to mention several serious errors
and misrepresentations in Patten's analysis.

A colleague of mine, Professor C. W. Cross (a reputable geophysicist) and I
reviewed Patten's book entitled "The Biblical Flood & The
Ice Age"
for local publicity. In spite of the fact that we both accept the possibility,
of a global biblical flood as a legitimate historical event, we were
both appalled
at the superficiality of the arguments presented in the book and the
obvious scientific
inaccuracies in several of Mr. Patten's fundamental explanations.

We have discouraged local publicity of the book and would suggest you
do the some,
after reviewing our enclosed comments.

A Review of the book.

"The Biblical Flood and The Ice Epoch" is an interesting book which
rises an unconventional astrophysical approach in an attempt to
explain a global
biblical flood. Had the book actually portrayed its intended prtrpose, namely
to present eatastroplsism as is well thought-nut, scientifically
tenable alternative,
it would have made an entertaining as well as' ',s thought provoking reading.
However, the author fails to do so for the following reasons:

In an attempt to be comprehensive arid "scientific," the
author undertakes
the herculean task of plowing through an awesome array of scientific
disciplines,
such as astrophysics, geophysics, anthropology, etc., without
adequate scientific
training in any of these fields.

This is evident from the fact that in most of his hypotheses he fails
to analyze
available geological information and omits significant factors which
would otherwise
completely invalidate his hypotheses.

For example, the author states that the Ice Epoch was caused by
millions of cubic
feet of ice that fell on earth from an astral visitor over a very short period
of time. However, he forgets that even a piece of ice one cubic mile
in size will
completely evaporate by frictional heating in the earth's atmosphere before it
impacts on earth.
Furthermore, according to Professor G. W. Gross, geophysicist at New
Mexico Mining
Institute, who also reviewed the book, the author completely ignores
the evidence
on the age and different stages of glaciation" based on
radioactive age determinations
of plant and animal remnants, as well as on layered deposits of glacial lakes
("varves")

He also ignores the evidence on the age of geological formations
obtained by the
same methods. Therefore, his geological time table (pp. 302-304) is
unacceptable.
The overwhelming evidence is that our present picture of the
geological sequence
is basically' correct (although it is undoubtedly' wrong in many
details). Geophysical
age determinations may well be, and often are, in error. But if so the author
has failed to prove it. As a matter of fact, the author does not so
much as mention
them. These methods are not based on any geological hypothesis (such
as uniformitarianism),
but on physical theories that are among the most solidly grounded concepts of
science. (If, indeed, we accept that there is such a thing as certain
knowledge;
but if not, there is no reason in discussing the problem at all.)

There are no calculations to support his massive tide theory, neither does he properly investigate the consequences of a large
astral visitor from considerations of orbital mechanics. The latter
shows constraints
imposed by Newton's law of universal gravitation on celestial bodies
which makes
the author's "visitor" theory highly suspect.

There is no need to go any further. It is the reviewer's opinion that this book
be treated at best as science fiction and by no means an authentic, scholarly
document because, if used and quoted indiscriminately, it will be violating one
of the basic tenets of Scripture, namely, that of sticking to the
truth, and can
thus become a detriment to the authenticity of the Scriptures. Dr. K.
J. Touryau
Supervisor, Reentry Physics Group Sandia Laboratory
Albuquerque, New Mexico

P. S. Both Professor Gross and I would like to make it clear that we do accept
the possibility of a global biblical flood as stated in the Scriptures.